Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bob Barr on the Colbert Report: The Legendary Live Thread
The Libertarian Party's presidential war horse is on the Colbert Report tonight, talking about (I assume) his decision to quit the race and endorse John McCain. Or gloating about the polls that show him handing Southern states over to Barack Obama. Or, perhaps, talking about the Libertarian message.
One of those three things.
Consider this an open thread if you're watching Colbert (at 11 p.m. ET) or if you're gloating about Hillary Clinton's decision to quit the race on Friday.
|6.4.08 @ 6:48PM|#
I believe Colbert is on at 11:30 pm. I plan on watching, or at least recording it with the DVR.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 7:14PM|#
If Barr gets any traction this season, I wonder what Reason will do to torpedo him. I am just curious, however, as nothing the Kochtopus can cook up can possibly discredit him as much as they've already discredited themselves.
stephen the goldberger|6.4.08 @ 7:16PM|#
...as nothing the Kochtopus can cook up can possibly
discredit him as much as they've already discredited
themselves.
What does Ed Koch have to do with any of this?
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Charles and David Koch bankroll the Reason Foundation, CATO
institute, and other psudolibertarian organizations. They were
behind the newsletter calumny on the eve of the NH primary, as well
as other fratracidal acts against anyone even remotely associated
with Lew Rockwell.
David Koch functions like the token Jew on the housing board of his
5th Avenue coop. He is the establishment libetertarian who's job it
is to keep the rest of the libs out.
Colin|6.4.08 @ 7:39PM|#
While I don't think it'll happen, it'd be great if libertarians
caused McCain to lose the election.
Maybe they'd take us more seriously.
Or then again, maybe not.
|6.4.08 @ 7:40PM|#
I see the yokeltarians are here again.
And I noticed that the
Chief Yokeltarian doesn't really understand 'freedom to choose'
at all.
Colin|6.4.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Funny, I thought it was the New Republic that exposed Paul's
newsletters.
Or do these "Jews" bankroll that magazine as well?
|6.4.08 @ 7:45PM|#
The name "Apauligist" would seem to indicate it's either a parody or an agent provocateur.
Colin|6.4.08 @ 7:46PM|#
The name "Apauligist" would seem to indicate it's either a
parody or an agent provocateur.
Or both.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 7:52PM|#
TNR is a liberal rag that was fed the info. It is in fact
controlled by a Jew, Mart Peretz. That he is Jewish is irrellevant.
That he is a Likudnik is not.
It is characteristic of the likudnik neocons to suggest, as I
already detect, that anyone opposing them isanti-semitic. I suppose
this includes the Jewish J street organization as well.
The newsletters were unearthed at the U. Of Kansas, home of the
Koch Arena. Coincidence?
Snootful|6.4.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Or, perhaps, talking about the Libertarian message.
Is there anybody on the Barr campaign who cares about that?
PantsFan|6.4.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Can we make this a Stanley Cup thread too, because unlike Tiger
Woods, I watch hockey
Go Pens!
|6.4.08 @ 7:57PM|#
PantsFan,
Isn't hockey the game that involves fistfighting until distracted
by a black disk? I saw that once. Did you know that vomit and blood
bounce on ice?
|6.4.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Can we make this a Stanley Cup thread too, because unlike
Tiger Woods, I watch hockey
Go Pens!
Go Wings. Damn, 30 seconds away from our 11th(?) Cup and your kids
pull off a miracle. So we havee the Sanley Cup Parade here in
Hockeytown a couple of
days late. We can live with that,
PantsFan|6.4.08 @ 8:16PM|#
There's very little if any fighting in playoff hockey.
It's more skill and finesse.
charlie|6.4.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Yes Ayn Randian, how dare Lew Rockwell criticize the
imprisonment of a 17 year old, clinically depressed junior in high
school for not showing up to kill for the State.
Of course, no private company is allowed to sign up 17 year olds
for jobs they can't quit -- and as for contracts, the military's
stop-loss program has shown that the State doesn't keep up its end
of the bargain, so for all intents and purposes they are
worthless.
But go ahead, please tell us why libertarians should support
imprisoning high schoolers for failing to fulfill their end of said
b.s. "contracts."
|6.4.08 @ 8:27PM|#
The fighting in the NHL has gone down a lot in recent years. I'm of mixed emotions about that. On one hand it's hockey, not brawling on ice. OTOH, I've seen some damned good melees in the NHL.
|6.4.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Of course, no private company is allowed to sign up 17 year
olds for jobs they can't quit
Anyone can quit the military when they want. The penalties (as
spelled out in the contract) are steep, however.
Point taken that no other employers can use these contracts. They
should be allowed to, however.
and as for contracts, the military's stop-loss program has
shown that the State doesn't keep up its end of the bargain, so for
all intents and purposes they are worthless.
stop-loss is part of the contract, charlie.
|6.4.08 @ 8:41PM|#
I thought that if you showed up in boot camp and then quit
trying to pass the training there, they allowed you to leave the
military?
If this is so, why would they try and compel someone to attend boot
camp who clearly would pull this?
BakedPenguin|6.4.08 @ 8:44PM|#
The Bertuzzi cheap shot thing a few years back really was a wake up call. The other guy could have died. I thought Bertuzzi should have been banned for at least five years.
Rimfax|6.4.08 @ 8:45PM|#
They were behind the newsletter calumny
So, are you saying that Rockwell wasn't the shitbag who wrote that
execrable crap? Cause whoever wrote that in Paul's name is to blame
more than anyone else. Least of all someone who merely pointed out
that it happened. Or is that not how things work on Rockwell's
planet?
|6.4.08 @ 8:46PM|#
btw - concerning the Stanley Cup....
What would an NHL game look like if they allowed fast breaks like
the NBA?
The blue line rules are fascinating...
jorgen|6.4.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Especially the person who wrote all the newsletters and then didn't come out and say it was him when the scandal broke. That person really screwed over Ron Paul. Whoever he is.
jorgen|6.4.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Of course, Ron Paul is to blame too, for not really seeing paranoia and racism as a big enough deal so as not to get his name associated with it.
|6.4.08 @ 8:52PM|#
David Koch functions like the token Jew on the housing board of his 5th Avenue coop. He is the establishment libetertarian who's job it is to keep the rest of the libs out.
Wow. Just wow. For the record, I am a paleolibertarian in the old
sense of the word, before Lew Rockwell underwent his
lobotomy.
"Paleolibertarian:
Combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural
conservatism in social thought." Rockwell seems to have redefined
this as being a Rothbard worshipping crypto-conspiracist.
|6.4.08 @ 8:55PM|#
What would an NHL game look like if they allowed fast breaks
like the NBA?
More scoring, less hitting. That's just a guess there.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 9:14PM|#
"So, are you saying that Rockwell wasn't the shitbag who wrote
that execrable crap? Cause whoever wrote that in Paul's name is to
blame more than anyone else. Least of all someone who merely
pointed out that it happened. Or is that not how things work on
Rockwell's planet?"
We are straying off topic here, but Rockwell's style of writing is
nothing like the newsletters (which weren't that bad when read in
context).
The point is we had an aopportunity to really strike a blow for
freedom and we got bogged down in this decades-old neo-paleo fued.
Paul wasn't an ideal candidate by any means, but he would have been
a huluva lot better than BHO, or McCain.
The Khoch hate machine exists. The people that control CASTO/REASON
hate the LVM paleos more than they love liberty and they
demonstrated that by participating in a neocon smear
campaign.
The beltway libs are sell-outs. Matt, Nick, Radley and the whole
stinking lot of them would trade their principles for an invitation
to a cocktail party.
No Name Guy|6.4.08 @ 9:21PM|#
"Apaulogist", you're a class AAA nutbag and borderline anti-semite. Go back to the John Birch Society/Stormfront.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 9:28PM|#
DRINK!
(anyone criticising the neocons get branded an antisemite- even
Jews like Ilana Mercer, Shimshon Weisman, or J Street. It's so
predictable that it's now part of the drinking game.)
|6.4.08 @ 9:34PM|#
More scoring, less hitting. That's just a guess
there.
Yes, but also more passing and less skating.
Like pinball. Or like foosball!
Yeah!
|6.4.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Apaulogist,
I donated money to the Paul campaign prior to the newsletter
surfacing. I voted for him in the Michigan GOP primary after the
feces impacted the rotating vanes.
After the newletters surfaced at New Republic, Reason OnLine
covered it because it was a legitimate news story of particular
interest to libertarians. The Ron Paul campaign's response was best
described as lame. Here is how I, one of his supporters,
interpreted it.
I didn't write them. I didn't read them before they went out. I did authorize others to use my name on them. I don't agree with the sentiments that are on the newsletters and I won't divulge who was responsible for the text. I'm being loyal to a long time supporter and friend.
I don't know who wrote those sophmoric dispatches tinged with
racism, but Ron Paul does. I'll bet you Lew Rockwell does as well.
The silence is deafening.
Now for some hard truths
Inb context the newsletters were deplorable and Indefensible.
The Reason Foundation did not write, publish or bring to light
those newsletters. Reason OnLine discussed the issue and would have
been irresponsible if they didn't. They did not sabotage the
campaign. They did not stab Ron Paul in the back.
Even before the revelations of the newsletters, I didn't expect RP
to win the nomination. After they were exposed I knew he was not
going anywhere.
Get over it. Ron Paul was responsible for the whoile fiasco.
|6.4.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Apaulogist,
Your jocular instincts betray you. The real "RON PAUL = GOD"
apologists rank somewhere below Janet Reno on the sense of humor
scale.
Chris in NJ|6.4.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Jeez. For all the infighting that goes on within this movement,
it's a wonder we're able to get anything done.
Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a
homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to
offer.
Go Bob Barr!
|6.4.08 @ 10:13PM|#
At the end of the second period
Red Wings - 2
Penguins - 1
Let's Go Red Wings
Let's Go Red Wings
|6.4.08 @ 10:25PM|#
The only kind of 'tarian I could never vote for is an autocoprotarian (a libertarian who believes in free markets and social freedoms, but is enamored with his own feces).
T|6.4.08 @ 10:31PM|#
a libertarian who believes in free markets and social
freedoms, but is enamored with his own feces
As long as he does what he does where I don't have to see it (and
washes his hands thoroughly) I could care less what the man's
hobbies are.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Chris wrote:
"Jeez. For all the infighting that goes on within this movement,
it's a wonder we're able to get anything done."
I completely agree with that.
"Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a
homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to
offer."
That, too.
"Go Bob Barr!"
I'll even agree with that, in the almost-certain event that RP
fails to get the GOP nomination.
Famous Mortimer|6.4.08 @ 10:47PM|#
"Paleolibertarian: Combination of radical libertarianism in
politics and cultural conservatism in social thought."
Please tell me that you have not, or will not procreate?
Anyway, everytime the discussion of Ron Paul and the newsletters
comes up, it's astonishing how Libertarians suddenly find the
ability to qualify everything.
Anyone who still supports Ron Paul's campaign, even posthumously
needs to have their head examined. What came out in those
newsletters made him completely unfit for any kind of public
office, and his diplomatic abilities seemed almost
non-existent.
But hey, anything to get a Libertarian in office, right?
Now, if the whole thing involved a University instructor, then we
would have 700 comments telling us how higher education produces
whack-jobs. However, when coming from the lips of a self-avowed
Libertarian, the irony is almost always lost.
"Whatever our disagreements, I'll take a paleo- or a cosmo- or a
homo- libertarian over anything the Dems and Repugs have to
offer."
I understand your frustration, but that's exactly the problem with
the movement. Pushing for anyone who remotely states anything
Libertarian could lead us toward the same results that blind Bush
voters did. After all, Bush was elected on the same strategy by
devout Republican voters, when, in retrospect electing a Giraffe
would have been just as sensible.
I like reading Libertarian thought because it's one of the few
philosophies that invites skepticism on many issues that I am
interested in, but as a politcal movement it has far too many
bitter, and unintelligent members to formulate any meaningful
dialogue.
You guys can't even agree on what a Libertarian is.
It would more interesting if this site justified its name, and just
focused on being a skeptics magazine.
Of course, when it has been skeptical about Libertarian thought,
many people on here become outraged. Next time many of you mock
religious thought on here, take a long look at your own
writing.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 10:48PM|#
J sub wrote:
"The Reason Foundation did not write, publish or bring to light
those newsletters. Reason OnLine discussed the issue and would have
been irresponsible if they didn't. They did not sabotage the
campaign. They did not stab Ron Paul in the back. "
Reason parroted the TNR narrative without even changing the spin. I
have no idea which tentacle of the Kochtopus put the newsletters in
Pimples Kirchik's hands, but they came from the library of the U.
Of Kansas, a power center for Chuckles Koch.
Sure, RP could have handled the scandal better, but he is a boring
ob/gyn who was happily married for over fifty years. Damage control
was not a skill he needed to develop before then.
Maybe he would have lost anyway, but Reason had a responsibility to
cover the story from a free minds/free markets perspective and in
that they failed.
Anyone who thinks trailerpark skinheads are a bigger threat than
the State has no business calling themselves libertarian.
|6.4.08 @ 10:49PM|#
You know, I really didn't think that anyone actually still
denied that Rockwell wrote those articles. Paul's oversite, or lack
thereof, is a different issue, but even Gene Callahan confirms it
in a response to a comment on his blog, and to humorous
effect:
"I never cared that they were 'mad' -- I cared that they engaged in
vicious personal attacks on writers who were merely noting the
truth. (Yes, Bob, Lew DID write those newsletters -- as one of the
Reason writers noted, De Coster was the ONLY blogger at LRC denying
that -- as he said, 'Wow, no one told De Coster that the
allegations were true!'"
He also happens to be an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, so
accusations of being a member of the "Kochtopus" are... lacking, to
say the least...
So, five bucks says Colbert swoons over Barr's mustache.
PantsFan|6.4.08 @ 11:00PM|#
Congrats to the Red Wings for their Cup.
They are a talented bunch. The penguins are still young, and
hopefully will be back soon.
Apaulogist|6.4.08 @ 11:30PM|#
Lysander, I doubt anyone cares who wrote the newsletters at this
point. What I care about is wheter or not I can trust Reason to
really cover the issues from a libertarian point of view and I am
far from convinced. The Reason Foundation has the bankroll and MSM
connections to drown out the voices of smaller, but more legitimate
libertarian voices. In that respect it is an enemy of all we (and
they) claim to stand for.
Maybe that's why Reason is hemorrhaging subscribers.
Colbert and Barr bear an odd resemblance to Abbott and
Costello.
|6.4.08 @ 11:40PM|#
Apaulogist, all of that may be true and is talked about quite a
bit elsewhere, but it was just this quote from you which caught my
eye and inspired me to post:
"We are straying off topic here, but Rockwell's style of writing is
nothing like the newsletters (which weren't that bad when read in
context)."
Anyway, Abbott and Costello weren't very funny, but Colbert is,
right or wrong. George Wills defended himself very well last
night.
Former Subscriber|6.4.08 @ 11:41PM|#
Maybe that's why Reason is hemorrhaging
subscribers.
Why buy the cow?
Bring back Virginia !
I hardly read dead tree media unless I'm taking a shit.
Curious Hussein George|6.4.08 @ 11:44PM|#
Anydody sen the Bob Barr "whitey video"
I'm sure he was saying Why'd he
Icl|6.4.08 @ 11:50PM|#
This guy is such a hippocrate. The only redeeming thing about him is that he might take enough votes away from McCain.
|6.4.08 @ 11:51PM|#
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That was the boringest Libertarian I've ever heard. My hopes for
the Barr campaign are rapidly evaporating.
stephen the goldberger|6.4.08 @ 11:55PM|#
Barr looked very uncomfortable and on edge, Colbert had some
tough questions too, as well as some hilarious attacks on the
Libertarian party in the lead up to the interview.
Not Barr's best day, and Colbert did a decent job painting him as a
"conservative" i.e. an object to be mocked by his fans and
basically ignored. Also he brought up Barr's votes for the Patriot
Act and writing Defense of Marriage Act which sends mixed messages
to viewers as to what Barr and the party is all about, especially
since Barr didn't do a great job setting the record straight/the
editors cut that stuff out.
Still I'm sure Barr did a much better job than ANY of the other
candidates would have.
|6.4.08 @ 11:55PM|#
I thought Barr hit a single. It wasn't like Ron Paul on Bill Maher, but it was enough to get the undecideds who were open to his message to listen to him. I have a feeling that it will be Wayne Allyn Root who really needs to barnstorm the country and spread the word. Barr just doesn't have "it" to do it on his own.
Colin|6.4.08 @ 11:56PM|#
I haven't seen yet, but I can imagine it. Barr's not a
particularly funny man.
Perhaps they should've sent Root. Now, that would've been
funny.
|6.5.08 @ 12:00AM|#
It wasn't like Ron Paul on Bill Maher, but it was enough to
get the undecideds who were open to his message to listen to
him.
You're kidding right? Even Teri Schiavo would have been looking for
the remote.
x,y|6.5.08 @ 12:02AM|#
Boring, sure, but I think he acquitted himself well. I'm still
unsure about whether I'll vote for him (the alternative being not
voting), but he didn't lose my vote.
Colbert, by the way, is a comic genius (paraphrase): What do you
mean the Bush administration isn't libertarian? They shrunk
government so much it fits in the bedroom!
1|6.5.08 @ 12:03AM|#
why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian ideas as crazy, I've never understood this.
x,y|6.5.08 @ 12:08AM|#
why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian ideas as crazy, I've never understood this.
Misrepresentation by omission: You libertarians want to get rid of
everything! No FDA?! Who will inspect the meat?!?!
It's really quite obtuse, but people fall for it because they are
so used to the status quo. People can barely wrap their minds
around the idea that voluntary associations would be created to
deal with meaningful problems.
dead_elvis|6.5.08 @ 12:08AM|#
Congrats to Detroit and the Red Wings! Always nice to see them
win.
In other news, Argentina is bitch slapping Mexico in international
soccer. 3-0 at the half.
|6.5.08 @ 12:10AM|#
I have to admit that Bob Barr was funny at a few points and did
get his serious message out. Colbert Report appearance for Barr
ended up being the right choice.
Let's get down to brass tax about John McCain. Many people argue
that George W. record ended up not being conservative in several
areas including spending, government regulation, unable to tell the
difference between and winning war strategy and losing one among
others. John McCain is clearly to the left of George W. Bush or
even the elder Bush for that matter on tax policy, border security,
campaign finance reform that tried to hush citizens, the human
impact of global warming, and the federal government role on the
economy. McCain agrees with Obama and these issues more than Bush.
John McCain supports Warner-Lieberman! Bottom line: McCain may be
the standard bearer for the Republican Party, but Bob Barr is
closer to following the ideas Republican believe in. If it was not
for Democrat and Independent voters in the early primary states who
crossed over to support McCain, he would be back in the Senate
right now. I will vote for Barr because is the better Republican
choice(as the LP nominee) in the fall.
Icl|6.5.08 @ 12:10AM|#
"why are liberals so good at painting conservative/libertarian
ideas as crazy, I've never understood this."
Libertarians will be painted as crazy as long as they are viewed as
a branch of conservatism.
And yes, conservatives are crazy.
|6.5.08 @ 12:17AM|#
You're kidding right? Even Teri Schiavo would have been
looking for the remote.
And the Bush administration would have handed it to her. YMMV, but
I still think Barr acquitted himself well, and Colbert kept the
segment entertaining. There are two parts to that equation, you
know.
Orange Line Special|6.5.08 @ 12:27AM|#
Bobarr is going to have zero impact, perhaps even less than Mr.
"I refuse to get a DriversLicense" did.
The best choice from a libertarian standpoint would be Hill, and
the other remaining choices would be very bad.
Obviously, what libertarians have done - at least the
"libertarians" here - is cheer on the two who would be the worst
for them.
Absolutely brilliant thinking, yet again.
Mike Laursen|6.5.08 @ 12:32AM|#
"Libertarians will be painted as crazy as long as they are
viewed as a branch of conservatism. And yes, conservatives are
crazy."
So true.
|6.5.08 @ 12:34AM|#
Hill-ary? I watched the LP convention, and I don't remember a "Hill". Little help here for the non-LoneWacko-ConspriracyDriven-HateTheBrownies-WhitePower people here?
|6.5.08 @ 12:42AM|#
Hillary is clearly a libertarian as she applied the Rothbard/Rockwell strategy of going after the "white racist moron" vote. She did rather well, almost winning on her white libertarian credentials. Unfortunately, Obama's strategy of actually winning delegates rather than focusing on the popular vote of the "over 65,unemployed white racists with no college education ( REAL Amerricans)" bloc was the winning one.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 12:42AM|#
I admit there is much craziness in the conservative
thinkosphere, but no more than on the left. That's why we say "a
pox on both houses."
And we all love brownies here, especially the herbal type :-D
|6.5.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Don't know why people thought Barr did that bad. I thought he
did all right. Once again, the taint of purity infects libertarian
discussion.
To us libertarians, the fact that Barr originally support the
Patriot Act is a serious transgression. HOWEVER, to the average
voter, the fact that Barr said on the show that he supported it,
then saw its effects, now is working to repeal it and said that if
elected President would repeal it is EXACTLY what the Libertarian
Party needs people to hear. And, I might add, a welcome tonic for
the nation after 8 years of a President and an administration
clinically unable to admit mistakes.
Show me a Libertarian who thought tonight's interview was boring
and I will show you one who wants the LP candidate to get on a
national t.v. show and announce that if elected, they would
immediately legalize all drugs including black tar heroin and would
decriminalize child porn so we could eliminate black market
incentives to produce sodomy between 10 year old boys.
|6.5.08 @ 12:51AM|#
Apaulogist: I've been in this thing for 30 years and your
interpretation of things is just pure nonsense. The person behind
the newsletter calumny was the editor of the racist nonsense and
that was Rockwell. And this nonsense about them constantly
attacking Rockwell is hilarious. They barely mention the man (and I
don't blame them) while his blog and website snipes at them
regularly.
Your logic is abysmal. Why were the newsletters unearthed at U of
Kansas (actually only some were the rest were at the Historical
Society in Wisconsin) because an on line interlibrary search showed
they had them. Of course clowns think Charles Koch went down there
and planted them. Note that unearthed means they existed and yet
the Paulist were denying they existed at first.
I knew Rothbard all the people involved. And while I'm closer to
Rothbard in my views I can say that this conspiracy crap that
Rockwell spews out is exaggeration and lies. I do so from first
hand experience knowing all the people involved.
And what's all this stuff where you kept mentioning who is
supposedly a Jew? Are we now trying to appeal to Nazi Party? It is
rants like yours that discredit Ron Paul the most and he is
surrounded by irrational basketcases like yourself.
Duckman|6.5.08 @ 1:00AM|#
Barr was awful in this interview. Truly a wasted
opportunity.
Barr should have talked about what libertarianism is and why he
converted to being one (from being a conservative Republican). He
pretty much let Colbert pin him as a social conservative with
almost NO reaction.
In short, no speaking up for libertarian ideas, only insistence
that he is a "great candidate." Total crap.
Also, Barr told some "weird" jokes, such as his comment near the
end of the interview that he has had some "interesting" things in
his bed. WTF?
LPers who wanted to ditch this guy were right. Too bad all the
other candidates sucked worse.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:03AM|#
"Hillary is clearly a libertarian as she applied the
Rothbard/Rockwell strategy of going after the 'white racist moron'
vote. "
As opposed to BHO building his whole early support on the Trinity
United Black Racist Moron vote.
Most voters are morons, whether they are watching Nascar or BET.
The only candidates who don't pander to morons are morons
themselves. That's democracy-finding the lowest common
denominator.
BTW, Rothbard was a Jew, and Lew Rockwell heads the Ludwig Von
Mises Institute. LVM was a Jew also. That overplayed race card is
losing its currency.
|6.5.08 @ 1:06AM|#
I'd like to mention that, one week ago (Thursday, May 29th) the
Barr campaign had raised 176,000.
As of today (Wednesday evening/Thursday morning), it now has
220,00.
7500 dollars a day sounds like an awesome amount to me.
|6.5.08 @ 1:08AM|#
Most voters are morons, whether they are watching Nascar or
BET.
Yep...everyone's stupid except the few elites who hold the
amazingly insightful views of your littel clique.
I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe
themselves to be over their fellow man.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:17AM|#
I don't give a rip who is Jewish. I was answering a question by
"outing" Marty Peretz. The relevant issue is who is a
neocon/likudnik. The neocons like to imply that they are the sole
representatives of the interests and opinion of American Jews and
therefor anyone who opposes them is anti-semitic, even if that
person is a Jew themselves.
I was using the "token Jew" analogy of David Koch's housing board
as an example of the kind of subtle racism the establishment
employs even as they attempt to brand us (the
anti-establishmentlibs) as the racists.
I support the foreign policy of liberal Jews as represented by J
street because I believe it is in the best interest of
America.
I shouldn't have to chose between hating Jews, Arabs and Persians.
The Neocons are attempting to force us all into that no-win
choice.
|6.5.08 @ 1:26AM|#
The LP did the right thing by nominating Barr. There will be
absolutely NO VOTES on the left for them to get this election. No
one even remotely leaning democratic will risk voting for anyone
but Obama for fear of another 4 years of Republican rule. My only
hope is that the LP is smart enough to swing back to the left and
embrace people like Gravel AND Barr.
Like the person above said, if libertarians are viewed as far-right
Republicans, they'll never be taken seriously. They need a
two-front attack, but at the moment, the enemy on the right flank
is the weakest.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:27AM|#
"I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe
themselves to be over their fellow man."
I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a
99% chance of being smarter than you. That still leaves 3 million
Americans smarter than me, so it's hardly a licence to impose my
will on anybody.
Voting is not an itellegent, rational act. Your vote will count
/160,000,000th of the total. Even in a tight race like 2000, it
won't matter much. Voting is an act of faith.
|6.5.08 @ 1:34AM|#
I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have
about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.
no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore? Talk about
your dick size?
Orange Line Special|6.5.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Bobarr is going to have zero impact
Which is still infinitely more impact than my blog and comments
have, but that's only because you fools can't appreciate how
Goddamned smart I am! Why won't anybody listen to me!?!? What the
fuck do I have to do to get through to you morons?? I'm important,
damnit!!! Fuck it, you're all hopeless. I am done here.
Kolohe|6.5.08 @ 1:42AM|#
I am constantly amazed at how much smarter people believe
themselves to be over their fellow man.
Hey, I'm not arrogant; I don't think I'm smarter than most
people.
I know I'm smarter than most people!
But, that comes with the knowledge, which was understood even
before the Simpsons illustrated it perfectly, that just putting the
smartest people in charge is the absolute *worst* way of organizing
society.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:42AM|#
You wondered why I think I am smart and I gave you a reason. I didn't say it was important or that you should care, but if you are the mouth-breather you appear to be in your writing, you are probably "constantly amazed" by a lot of things.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 1:44AM|#
John C Jackson | June 4, 2008, 11:48pm |
#
I take my laptop in the bathroom. So I have no need for dead tree
media at all.
You wipe your ass with your LAPTOP?
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:45AM|#
"But, that comes with the knowledge, which was understood even
before the Simpsons illustrated it perfectly, that just putting the
smartest people in charge is the absolute *worst* way of organizing
society."
Amen.
Kolohe|6.5.08 @ 1:46AM|#
In other words, the voters *are* morons, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 1:48AM|#
Ayn_Randian | June 5, 2008, 1:34am | #
I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.
no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore? Talk about
your dick size?
I'm smart and I have a huge knob. I win two different contests!
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 1:54AM|#
"In other words, the voters *are* morons, but I wouldn't have it
any other way."
Quite right. As soon as the great unwashed discover that they can
vote themselves funds from the public treasury, democracy it
doomed. Unfortunately, that has already happened.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 1:55AM|#
Apaulogist, I do think this board is a bit skewed as far as IQ
contests go (if one grants that such things are even valuable). The
percentile in which you find yourself compared to the general
population is not the percentile in which you'd land here.
In other words, imagine a bell curve, and imagine a tiny Orange
painted area just under the rightmost tail. That's proabably where
most reason posters are. In fact, there might be a little arrow
pointing out "You are here". But it's not meant to be a nasty
exclusive arrow, but an all-inclusive kum ba ya arrow, sort of like
one of Cupid's arrows.
Reason's Hit & Run Blog is all about love.
regular commenter who\'s just |6.5.08 @ 1:57AM|#
>>I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means
I have about a 99% chance of being smarter than you.
>no. one. cares. what are you going to do for an encore?
Talk about your dick size?
Oooh, I have both a higher IQ than that and the girl I
hooked up with the other night said, upon pulling my boxers down to
blow me, and I quote, "oh my god, you're huge!" So don't think
you're walking away with any victories that easily SWDWtLHJ
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 1:59AM|#
Good for you, man! The 137 was Apaulogist's though, not mine.
drunk guy who\'s just sayin\'.|6.5.08 @ 2:22AM|#
Good for you, man! The 137 was Apaulogist's though, not
mine.
Of course I knew that, but sorry my comment made it seem
otherwise... just got home and am kinda drunk. ;)
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:24AM|#
Working on it myself! But unfortunately I don't think I have enough wine here to even get a buzz.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 2:26AM|#
I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie to
you.
:-)
I was rooting for Obama, but after that AIPAC speech, I guess it
just does't matter much. BHO sold out to the Lobby and mysteriously
pulls in a clinching number of superdelegates just as he vows to
keep Iran nuclear-free.
now it's warmongering socialist vs. warmongering fascist and I weep
for the future.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 2:29AM|#
I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie
to you.
Every single one of them?
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 2:31AM|#
Working on it myself! But unfortunately I don't think I have
enough wine here to even get a buzz.
A travesty my man, come on over, I've got lots and lots.
|6.5.08 @ 2:31AM|#
Please tell me that you have not, or will not procreate?
Why, because I'm not a "lifestyle libertarian"? One shouldn't have
to be Starchild to be a libertarian.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 2:32AM|#
Talk about your dick size?
I never talk about My Big Two Inch!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:34AM|#
I would if I could, TWC. I'm more of a beer man normally but I like wine too. I had to give up the hard liquor though.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.08 @ 2:35AM|#
BB, intriguing. I scrolled upthread (slowly) but I couldn't find the offending comment. I blame the wine.
Don\'t-Know-Much History|6.5.08 @ 2:42AM|#
How about someone filling me in the on the
Rockwell-Rothbard-LvMI versus Koch-Cato-Reason feud that has,
apparently, been spanning years?
I've heard bits and pieces, but have never understood it in a
comprehensive manner; I know that the paleolibertarians have
disdain for social liberalism, and that the Reason (and that
'side') were too pro-war (allegedly), but what gossip am I
missing?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:43AM|#
Starchild here, citizens of the universe
Gettin' it on, partying on the Mothership.
When Gabriel's horn blows, you'd better be ready to go.
just sayin\'...|6.5.08 @ 2:44AM|#
I guess that could just mean you have sex with women who lie
to you.
I doubt they're all lying :)~ but if so, hey, they can
keep lying as long as they keep putting out.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 2:46AM|#
Winey- it's me, Joe. As you know, I tend to piss people off. I wonder how long it'll take me to get my IP banned again.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:48AM|#
My big question about the paleolibertarians is:
Are the socially conservative tendencies therein just personal
preferences or is it the preference of most paleolibertarians to
want to back up those preferences with the force of law or other
coercion? I'd assume the former as otherwise, I'd have a hard time
seeing the difference between paleolibertarianism and
paleoconservatism.
Bob Barr|6.5.08 @ 2:49AM|#
Bob Barr said he was the first good candidate produced by the LP? Did I hear that right?
just sayin\'...|6.5.08 @ 2:50AM|#
Every single one of them?
damn, TWC beat me to it. too drunk and slow... speaking of wine,
beer or liquor, I need another drink or I need to crash, one or the
other.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:52AM|#
Is Bob Barr talking about himself in the third person again?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:54AM|#
speaking of wine, beer or liquor, I need another drink or I
need to crash, one or the other.
Mystery guest, if you have enough of the former, the latter will
become a foregone conclusion. Just don't fall asleep in the tub.
Especially after twelve plus beer and two shots of Jaeger (the
shots in about five minutes). I'm not talking from experience here,
but um...it'd be bad.
Bob Barr|6.5.08 @ 2:55AM|#
Yes, Bob Barr did it on The Colbert Report and Barr is doing it
now.
Barr can't remember what Barr said on aforementioned show and the
clip isn't on YouTube; did Barr claim Barr is the first good
candidate of the LP?
Matt Moore|6.5.08 @ 2:56AM|#
So Tucker Carlson couldn't have won the LP nomination because he lost an interview with Jon Stewart... does that mean that George Will is now the nominee?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:57AM|#
BARR IS THE STRONGEST ONE THERE IS!
BARR SMASH PUNY HUMANS!
just sayin\'...|6.5.08 @ 2:58AM|#
if you have enough of the former, the latter will become a
foregone conclusion.
True enough. And I swore off Jäger shots forever after a rather
embarrassing incident last year.
libertarian|6.5.08 @ 2:58AM|#
I don't understand how paleolibertarians can't figure out that
laissez-faire capitalism unleashes social dynamism, where fashions
and styles and freedoms multiply and mutate, thereby emerging in
spontaneous orders like free markets.
Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least
ever-increasing heterogeneity.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 2:59AM|#
Please God, no bow-tie wearing candidates as Libertarians. That's all the added weirdness factor they'd need to ascend to some heaven filled with blue-skinned angels.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 3:00AM|#
"How about someone filling me in the on the
Rockwell-Rothbard-LvMI versus Koch-Cato-Reason feud that has,
apparently, been spanning years?"
Nobody knows for sure. It's like the hatfields and McCoys-it's gone
on so long that everyone forgot what started it.
"I've heard bits and pieces, but have never understood it in a
comprehensive manner; I know that the paleolibertarians have
disdain for social liberalism, and that the Reason (and that
'side') were too pro-war (allegedly), but what gossip am I
missing?"
That's about all I know also, except to say that the neolibs prefer
a less radical, gradual, moderate strategy that the paleos consider
too comprimising. On the other side, the beltway neolibs think the
paleos are too cosey with the John Birchers, the Pat Buchanan
Paleoconservatives and others considered unsavory.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 3:01AM|#
And I swore off Jäger shots forever after a rather
embarrassing incident last year.
I swore off shots entirely after something similar. Actually two
events, one merely semi-embarrassing and the other financially
unsound.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 3:04AM|#
Re: paleo vs cosmo feud:
The one complaint I keep seeing thrown around about the Reason
types is that they're cosmotarians, which seems to mean to some
that they're neocons in disguise, and too pro-war. I don't get that
at all. I haven't seen a single pro-Iraq war piece in Reason. Maybe
I've missed it. I don't keep up with the magazine religiously, so
it's possible, but still I'd think that I'd have seen at least a
hint of it.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 3:06AM|#
In fact, the neocon types (here I'm thinking Dondero) seem to
disdain Reason as much as any paleolibertarian I've ever
seen.
Maybe it's not fair to use Dondero as an example of anything,
though. Except maybe a nutball.
Kolohe|6.5.08 @ 3:07AM|#
interview was finally on in my time zone.
interesting that he walked on. Normally in an early interview, the
transition is from a close up on Colbert to the guest sitting right
next to him as part of the 'surprise' schtick.
he made no glaring errors, and was amicable throughout, which is
what people will remember.
He went to the talking points one too many times by repeating the
same answer about 'drawing people who are tired of the two party
system' which resulted in begging the question of why people should
vote libertarian.
I wish he would have made some affirmative points in the first few
sentences, like the policy project or the drug war in general
before Colbert prompted him. Heck, it would have been sufficient to
do a Gravel 'freedom, freedom, freedom' koan.
We (I) have been hard on the Ruwart wing for not being team players
and rallying around the nominee. But where Barr totally droppped
the ball in the interview was by making the same mistake. He
specifically singled out 'libertarian republicans' (DONDEROOOOOO!)
and fed-up conservative republicans by name, but made not even a de
minimus nod toward the disaffected democrat - which is far more
prevalent in Colbert/Stewart audience. Ron Paul did not make this
mistake. Heck, neither did Huckabee. This was such low hanging
fruit, that to have missed it puts serious doubts in my mind that
he knows what he's doing. He's the 'professional politician',
right?
LRC cosmotarian|6.5.08 @ 3:09AM|#
I read LRC daily and am quite a fan of most of the content; likewise, I enjoy LvMI's website. But I definitely don't understand the hostiliy to cosmotarians (an awkward and unpleasant neologism, to say the least--couldn't come up with anything more clever?); I am definitely socially liberal (socially tolerant could be more precise).
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.5.08 @ 3:13AM|#
Kolohe:
Maybe he actually wants rather to be the margin of error in a
McCain loss than actually try to pull votes from both.
I do think some reach out to Democrats or liberals who lean in a
libertarian direction is long overdue. The case for libertarians
and Republicans or conservatives being natural allies has been
going on too long and has always been overplayed.
Elemenope|6.5.08 @ 3:13AM|#
Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least
ever-increasing heterogeneity.
Except in China! But really, without that modest anomaly, the
theory does quite well.
It's just a modest anomaly, I swear.
Apaulogist|6.5.08 @ 3:14AM|#
"I don't understand how paleolibertarians can't figure out that
laissez-faire capitalism unleashes social dynamism, where fashions
and styles and freedoms multiply and mutate, thereby emerging in
spontaneous orders like free markets."
I believe that the paleos understand that. RP for example wants
drugs, gambling, prostitution all legalized even though he
personally doesn't practice or condone their use.
"Economic liberalism produces social liberalism, or at least
ever-increasing heterogeneity."
That may or may not be true. Any government policy may not be as
influential as you think. I don't think it matters to most of us,
however. Freedom trumps homogeneity.
The image of paleos as immigrant-hating xenophobes is a deliberate
distortion. My wife and children are Mexican nationals.
just sayin\'...|6.5.08 @ 3:14AM|#
Actually two events, one merely semi-embarrassing and the
other financially unsound.
Luckily the most financially unsound thing that's happened from
drinking was letting this girl talk me into taking her to a strip
club (ok, she didn't exactly have to beg) where she proceeded to
run up a well-into-three-figure tab. If I had wanted to spend that
kinda scratch to get laid I could have probably done better on
craigslist or something.
YoYoYo|6.5.08 @ 3:18AM|#
Elemenope,
China is becoming socially liberal, slowly but surely. It's moving
in THAT direction, not stagnating or regressing.
Don\'t ask me how I know this|6.5.08 @ 4:13AM|#
Anecdotal evidence of tenuous possible gradual moderate social
liberalization in china
There are original content mainland chinese porn sites that are not
outright id theft scams.
Trevor|6.5.08 @ 5:02AM|#
do think some reach out to Democrats or liberals who lean in
a libertarian direction is long overdue. The case for libertarians
and Republicans or conservatives being natural allies has been
going on too long and has always been overplayed.
Completely agree.
Neither Gravel nor Barr are strict libertarians, but it was funny
that Gravel caught the most flack because he leans slight left
rather than slight right.
|6.5.08 @ 6:38AM|#
Gravel advocated national health care, a major expansion of
government. It was part of his campaign program.
He supported a revenue neutral version of the fair tax and was
going to spend that money on
social programs.
Most complaints about Barr is that he is not
proposing an expansion of personal liberties in
various ways. And opposition to any expansion
of personal liberties is not part of his campaign program.
I suppose allowing states to outlaw abortion (and believing they
should) would be an area where he proposes expanded government
authority, but he isn't running on this issue.
Enforcing the borders would be an area were he ffavors more
government, though he isn't emphasizing this. And, so far, he
appears favorably disposed to expanded legal immigration for
workers. It is on his website, but it doesn't receive much
emphasis.
In my opinion, the campaign program is most important. Is it about
cutting government and expanding liberty? If not, that is a big
problem.
|6.5.08 @ 9:07AM|#
DRINK!
(anyone criticising the neocons get branded an antisemite- even Jews like Ilana Mercer, Shimshon Weisman, or J Street. It's so predictable that it's now part of the drinking game.)
You are not one of the arbiters* of the Hit & Run Drinking
Game. You therefore do not get to add rules.
* The arbiters are, of course, a shadowy cabal of prominent Jews,
meeting in secret to a) control the governments of the world, and
b) decide what rules shall be added to the H&R Drinking
Game.
robc|6.5.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Colin,
Funny, I thought it was the New Republic that exposed Paul's
newsletters.
If by "exposed" you mean "print something that we had discussed ad
nauseum on H&R 6 months earlier with references to it being an
issue going back 12 years" then yes, NR "exposed" the
newsletters.
robc|6.5.08 @ 9:51AM|#
J sub D,
After the newletters surfaced at New Republic, Reason OnLine
covered it because it was a legitimate news story of particular
interest to libertarians.
What I dont understand (and its my only criticism of Reason's
coverage of the newsletters) and no one has ever answered it for
me, is why Reason felt the need to rehash (over and over) the
newsletter story this winter when it had fully hashed it last
spring?
Obviously, after the NR story, it had to be mentioned here, but I
figured one post would have been enough, considering the previous
coverage.
Famous Mortimer|6.5.08 @ 11:42AM|#
"I just raw probability. I have a 137 IQ, which means I have
about a 99% chance of being smarter than you. That still leaves 3
million Americans smarter than me, so it's hardly a licence to
impose my will on anybody."
The fact that you think IQ is a valid measure of intelligence,
makes me question your intelligence.
Also, people will continue to paint Libertarians as batshit crazy
as long as they support batshit crazy people, and ideas.
If Libertarians gained their coveted, never before experienced,
agrarian Republic, then the U.S. would become even more of a ghetto
than it already is.
The status quo may be ridiculous, but it certainly isn't as
terrifying as some of the ideas presented by many people on
here.
Libertarianism is just as much about social engineering as every
other extremist philosophy. It's an attempt to bully the masses
into giving up social investments because the cost is fucking up
your monthly cable bill.
Mike Laursen|6.5.08 @ 11:44AM|#
When you say that it was discussed on this blog six months earlier, are you not referring to a rumor that there was a single racist newsletter that went out without Ron Paul's prior knowledge? The latter revelation was that there were many racist newsletters over several years. Big difference.
Famous Mortimer|6.5.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"What I dont understand (and its my only criticism of Reason's
coverage of the newsletters) and no one has ever answered it for
me, is why Reason felt the need to rehash (over and over) the
newsletter story this winter when it had fully hashed it last
spring?"
Because it's an issue that involves a prominent Libertarian figure.
More importantly, it's an issue that has never been addressed in
any meaningful way by Ron Paul. So, if Ron Paul is interested in
running again, then this issue will still be relevant, and it
should be relevant while he's still in office.
I know, I know. If only we could just get them to shut up about it,
it would go away.
Look, if you guys want to just sit around and cheerlead while
preaching to the choir, then you need to get on over to Takimag.com
where the truly crazy Libertarians dwell.
Apparently, Reason.com is just too contrary for your tastes.
|6.5.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Lets see we have Obama, an anti-white racist (read his first
book) or McCain a candidate who mirrors Obama on the issues, except
for tiny differences to make them look opposite. For instance,
Obama would leave Iraq 3-4 years from now, McCain in 7 years. Not
much of a difference, Obama would attack Iran, but talk first,
McCain would just attack.
They are both big government, McCain has too much experience, Obama
has as much as my grandma.
Republicans and Democrats like to pretend that they are different
and that you must vote for one or the other every 4 years, only to
see our country lose millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, get
and stay into crazy wars and to lose our homes and create gas price
spikes.
Stop the insanity of the two party system and stop believing that
the Democrats and Republcians are different.
Vote for Bob Barr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245